Daniel Schwabe's blog/

With the advent of digital photography and Photoshop, it has become much easier to process and manipulate images. While darkroom processing, in the analog days, was a necessary step to actually get the images - be it in film or in print - digital technology allows for instant images.

I have heard many people argue that one should keep the photographs "as they come out of the camera", as if this was the "true", "pure" image, capturing "the real thing", and any sort of processing is actually distorting reality in some way. It is clear to me that using any camera always introduces some kind of processing, be it in the "analog" hardware of ealier cameras and film, or in the hardware/software combination in modern digital cameras. In other words, there is no such thing as "real" to begin with! While documentary photographers try to capture real happenings, we all know they can be as manipulated as any other kind of image. The belief in their authenticity relies much more in people's interpretation of the images than in the actual authenticity of the captured pixels. As Pedro Meyer puts it, “Face it, all photographs are and always have been the product of manipulating reality. They are simply interpretations of the photographer who made them,” (see his book The Real and the True: The Digital Photography of Pedro Meyer, or read a review for excellent discussions and further references on this debate)

[Update: I have since found this excellent article on Creativity, by Eddy Sethna. It is worth reading!]

So post processing a photo is like introducing one's own "authoring" into the image, in addition or in substitution of the camera's processing. To me, it is as an integral part of the creative experience as the actual shooting of the photo. The question remains, though, how much processing to do. Some will argue that fixing image properties such as contrast, sharpness, saturation, colors is OK, but removing or adding elements is not.

Personally, each image I make is my interpretation of a reality I lived, which I try to communicate to others. Sometimes I feel it to be quite "factual", but most of the time colored by my own memories, feelings, emotions, past and current experiences, either at the time I took the picture of at the time I am processing it. So if I feel I have to add or remove something, I will do it. I don't have any commitment to being "accurate" or "real".

Many of my photos play with these perceptions, showing how the eye can actually seem images that many would consider manipulations. This is especially true with reflections, as in this photo

I am constantly fascinated by these images, which are all around us, and many don't see them. Others may be actual manipulations - which I don't do very much - but in any case I don't think this is so relevant; what matters is the feeling, emotion, idea, or message being communicated.

In some sense, the message here is somewhat similar to the one in the famous Magritte's painting "La Trahison des Images (The Treachery of Images)", which bears the inscription "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"...

So, my friend, what is your opinion on this subject?